FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Hans Küng needs to write less and read more

To say that Hans Küng's September 10th interview with Deutsche Welle is embarrassing might be an insult to embarrassment. Let's play the "How Many Facts Can Hans Distort and Misrepresent Game," shall we? Here goes (Küng's comments in bold):

• "When we have a pope, who claims that -- as theological Lord of the
world -- only those who are with him are true Christians and that only
his Roman-Catholic Church is the true church, it gets on many people's
nerves." The Pope said that "only those who are with him are true Christians"? Really? C'mon, Hans, read the document!

• "Europeans look at it from the view of Islam's advancement from northern
Africa to Spain, between the eighth and 15th century and the leadership
of the Ottomans on the Balkan. They don't see that Christians not only
had the crusades, but until the 19th century they colonized the entire
Islamic area from Morocco to the Indonesian islands. That leads to
tensions." Um, if Islam was "advancing" (translation: conquering by brute force and bloodshed) to Spain and western Europe (by the year 730), that strongly suggests the Crusades, which began in 1095—over 300 years later!—might have been in response to said "advancements," no? Hans, read this article, please.

• "Unlike in previous times, it's no longer easy to get churches excited
about war. Of course more could be done, especially when it comes to
enlightenment." Sure 'nuf. More could be done. For one thing, Küng could start reading more, writing less.

• "When the pope in [a much-publicized 2006 speech in the Bavarian town
of] Regensburg tried to define Islam as a religion of violence, he
noticed himself that he took the wrong path. You have to remember the
kind of trails of blood Christians left in history." Pope Benedict tried to define Islam as a religion of violence? And then he realized that he'd made a mistake? I must have missed all of that; could we please have a citation? Küng should stop reading the media reports and read the actual address given by the Pope.

• "Then you become modest, and you won't say that we have the religion of
love and they have the religion of hate. Just like you and me, the
majority of Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan or Pakistan want to
have peace." Where, oh where did Pope Benedict ever say that Islam is a religion of hate? Where? I'm waiting....tick...tock...

• "He [Benedict XVI] did notice that it [the Regensburg Address] was a mistake, and he had to take in quite a bit of criticism. He corrected his speech many times." No, actually, he didn't. He said:

"At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect. This is the meaning of the discourse."

• "The Romans, the Roman bishop, i.e. the pope, have a hard time admitting
mistakes. When you have an ideology of infallibility, then infallible
mistakes will be made, and those cannot be corrected." Wow. You would think that a guy who wrote an entire book on papal infallibility might actually understand what papal infallibility is. Which means that either he doesn't (embarrassing) or he is being misleading (worse than embarrassing). But, to point out the obvious, the Regensburg Address, while certainly a serious and important pronouncement, was not "infallible," nor did anyone with any commonsense or knowledge of Catholic teaching act as though it was. Well, take heart, Hans Küng: at least your many mistakes aren't infallible. Just embarrassing.

• "Desperate young people resorted to terrorism. Of course we have to
judge suicide assassins and assaults. But we have to think about why so
many young people became so desperate to make themselves available for
such assassinations." Yes, we sure do. And we need to consider strongly the possibility—which does have evidence on its side—that poverty and "desperation" are not the primary motives of Islamic terrorists. But, of course, you are so busy blaming everything on America and George Bush, you haven't time to read about other perspectives on the matter.

• "Religion can co-exist with democracy. The leading architects of Europe,
from Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer to Robert Schuman and Alcide
De Gasperi, were all pious Christians. The reason why Islam has more
problems with democracy than Christianity is that Islam, in contrast to
Christianity and Judaism, had no Reformation and Enlightenment, leaving
out a few special circles." I take that to mean that if it weren't for Protestantism and secularism, many Catholics would be just as violent and murderous as some radical Islamists are today? Is this guy serious?

• "You could certainly negotiate with the Taliban. They aren't just crazy
people. There are some extremists, and there are, on the other hand,
those that warned the Bush administration about Sept. 11. But it wasn't
taken seriously." Yeah, once you got past the violent oppression, beatings, killings, executions, genocide, and the burqas, the Taliban were just swell. Go on, ask 'em. I'm sure they'll agree.

• "Were you hurt that Pope Benedict XVI never accepted your idea of the World Ethic? He
accepted the idea as such. He realizes that there have to be common
ethical standards. During our conversation he conceded that those
standards need to be valid for believers and non-believers. One could
only have expected that he would personally advocate this. But that
might still happen." I recommend reading The Dialectics of Secularization. Or Deus Caritas Est. And stop trying to be pope. It's over. I'm fairly certain you're not eligible to be pontiff. At least not of a real Church.

• The interviewer asked: "A personal question: On Sept. 12 you will introduce your autobiography 'Controversial Truth.'" What? Another biography? Is this different from My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs (Eerdmans, 2003) and Disputed Truth: Memoirs, Volume 2 (Continuum, 2008), which together add up to about 820 pages!? Please, if only for the sake of the poor trees, stop writing and start reading.

Carl, HK is eligible to be pope (baptized, and male) in the same way I'm eligible to be president (native born, over 35). I leave the odds of either happening to those better versed in probability than I am.

I wonder if knowingly misrepresenting Catholic doctrine (i.e. maliciously lying) violates his "world ethic".. But then perhaps, as pope of his own new religion, he has granted himself a dispensation...

I was in a Catholic chat room the other day, and one fellow mentioned that he was reading one of Kueng's books (I can't recall which one). The debate arose: is he or is he not an excommunicated Catholic? I know that he has had his teaching license revoked, but is he still a valid holder of the priesthood? Wikipedia says yes, but that's, well, Wikipedia. So, here it is, once more: what is Kueng's canonical status? Anyone know? Thanks!

Thank you for posting this! Currently on the CARM 'Roman Catholic' forum, the VP of CARM is hailing Rev. Kung as the best thing sliced cheese. Your posting is timely. And no, he was not excommunicated by the Vatican, but perhaps he's done the job himself just fine.

That is too funny! Years ago (ten years ago, wow) I went round and round with Matt Slick of CARM. He proved to be consistently uninterested in truth, fairness, or charity. Perhaps he and King Kung belong together...

As Ed noted, Küng was never excommunicated. He has continued to play a version of the "eat the cake and have it too" game with the media, being both a "Catholic theologian" and an outspoken critic of the Church who has been cut off, shunned, banned, trampled (you get the picture). My guess is that he would never consider becoming Episcopalian or a New Age guru because he would immediately lose the attention and interest of most media types. And a glance at his work and approach indicates that he really, really, really likes the attention.

HK, with his enormous ego, reminds me of a book review I once read, describing the authors like this, to the best of my recollection:

"We can diagnose [said authors] as suffering from a case of libido dominandi, in which their own egos have been written so large that they must depict history as a story of progress culminating in their own genius."

On a related note (from two years ago): The Brevity of Ratzinger, the Effluence of Kung @ Against The Grain -- a comparison of Ratzinger's 156 p. Milestones to Kung's, well, 500 page first volume covering roughly the same amount of time. Kung can go on, and on, and on, and on. I wonder if he'll be as nasty to Ratzinger in the second volume as he was towards John Paul II in the first?

De Gasperi, Adenauer and Schuman were indeed all Christians - they were all pious Catholics. I do understand that mentioning this would have spoiled his sentence about Christianity getting on with democracy because of the Reformation.